Esoteric Cosmology

In a way the science channel seems to use cosmologists as a backing for their own versions of the big bang, what’s happening in the Universe or Multiverses etc. I like the ones Rudolf Steiner published in his books & lectures on Anthroposophy to wit: (Logos and the Word)

These changes in the breathing-process mark the transition from ancient consciousness which was merely a play of pictures, to consciousness as it is in our time. Sense perceptions are received from the body; consciousness has a purely objective character. Consciousness in pictures (imaginative) created its own inner content by means of an inherent, plastic force. The further we go into the past, the more we find the soul of man living, not within him, but around him. We reach a point when the sense-organs existed only in germ and when man merely received from external objects impressions which gave rise to attraction or repulsion, sympathy or antipathy. The movements of this being — whom we cannot really call ‘man’ in our sense of the word — were governed by these feelings of attraction or repulsion. He had no reasoning faculty and the pineal gland — an organ of cardinal importance in those times — was his only ‘brain’.

The existence of this imaginative consciousness is the answer to endless philosophical discussions on the objective nature and reality of the world and it is the refutation of all purely subjectivist philosophies, such, for instance, as that of Berkeley. Two poles of being and of life are essential to evolution. The ‘subjective universal’ becomes the objective universe; man proceeds, first, from the subjective to the objective and he will finally be led from the objective to the subjective by the development of Spirit-Self (Manas), Life-Spirit (Budhi), Spirit-Man (Atma).

Tags

rs

loa

unified words

consciousness

berkeley

MakeShitUp

makeItHappen

Comments

Si says

The ‘subjective universal’ becomes the objective universe; man proceeds, first, from the subjective to the objective

imagination → experience
thought → manifestation

subjective universal

all possibilities, static frames of potential experience, the matix, and many more names

I agree with RS. I simply speak in the words of “our” times.

Seth sayshmmm …. well RS is certainly dealing here with my inside/outside thoughts … i might almost need to read his whole lecture … good find for me, mark

Mark de LA saysThese are translations of German ~ 2001. Can’t really munge your words into his, particularly since you didn’t relate them in sentences.

Mark de LA saysThere are two titled with Logos (see about link.) Metamorphosis of Consciousness throughout evolution is peculiarly interesting in this cosmology.
Cosmology & evolution is mostly missing from the “other” point of view.

Seth sayswhich chapter did your quote come from ?

Mark de LA saysThe bold italic link above the quote.

Seth saysi too stumbeled on “subjective universal” … on first blush that sounds like a oximoron to me … the mind reels … which is why i’ll like to read that entire chapter.

Si saysI am not “munging words” Mark, I am noticing concepts and the modern words that apply to those same concepts. Language is as much a collection of ideas as it is complete sentences. Where ideas are complete, they stand on their own and the labels for them can be interchanged.

Mark de LA saysFull sentences & more meat on the bones would suffice to dispel the appearance of your munging your current ideas (Abraham, Bashar et al) into RS’s esoteric cosmology.

Seth says👍

Si saysAs I have said many times now, they are one and the same. If RS was speaking in 2016 he would sound so similar to Bashar and Abraham in how he talked you would hardly tell the difference. There would only be personality and culture differences.

It’s all the same information in any age and all I am doing is translating the words from one era to another.

Mark de LA saysAs a clue, I was looking for where RS talked about previous stages of mankind in the past & perhaps someday in the future where words & speech creates manifestations directly (magick?) – evolutionary stage also when the larynx becomes a sex organ; (am not talking about Deep Throat – pun intended).

Mark de LA saysso you say – I wouldn’t

Seth saysexcept that “imagination” is a special kind of “experience”, and “thought” is not necessarily “manifestation” …. so that your “→” does not capture the nuances of these words … which particular ones me thinks have not changed in usage all that very much since RS used them.

Si saysI am using → to denote direction, one precedes the other, just like RS was speaking of in the paragraphs above.

Seth says👍

Seth saysoh ok … now what you said makes sense to me. sorry i did not guess that. i do mis a lot, i realize that now.

Si says👍

Si saysOkay, yes. All I was doing was showing some of the modern translations for the same concept RS was talking about. Nothing more than showing that what I talk about is the same stuff RS has talked about, just that I talk in different words that match our times and evolution.

RS is clearly stating that the objective comes from the subjective first, and that is the basis for everything I have been saying out of the LOA perspective too.

Seth saysokay … but obviously i am reading it for different reasons.

Mark de LA saysYou guys are lost. You have not penetrated beyond the words. Equating words in a dictionary just gets you somewhere else in the dictionary or thesaurus.
I won’t hesitate to use the “pile” word again if it continues much longer. I prefer you fork it somewhere else.
I am studying aspects of consciousness, language & metamorphosis here.

Seth saysi hear what you are saying mark, when you say it of yourself, like in your last two sentences … that certainly sounds true and honest.

But your bold, “You guys are lost. You have not penetrated beyond the words”, sounds false and insulting to me and nathan. You say these things of which you know not, yet you insult us with them anyway.

And incidentally @mark, did you notice after @nathan clarified, that he was not “equating” these words, rather his copula was “one precedes the other”, so your complaint about staying within a dictionary (a valid complaint sometimes) did not here apply?

Seth says👍

Mark de LA says Request you fork this somewhere else. Your comments here are detritus on my thought. Your feelings of insult are your own conjure & false when implied about another.

Si saysI too am “studying aspects of consciousness” here. That is exactly what I am doing. Are you saying that one can only study aspects of consciousness if they do it in the same manner, and using the same ideas and beliefs, that you do?

Sudying aspects of consciousness is ALL I am doing here.

Seth sayshuh? i was insulted. I know how it feels. I made no implication about another. Except perhaps when i mentioned nathan … and he can always deny the insult if he wants. Me, i am honestly telling you that i was insulted … demeaned in your eyes … as if i could not read beneath a person’s words … a listening skill of which i am most proud.

Seth says

incidentally … why is this conversation that is happening right here, not an aspect of consciousness itself? … er, an example of consciousness, and therefore quite in your field of study.

Seth saysincidentally, @mark … you can fork the conversation yourself, you do not need to have us do it. that is one of the wisdom’s of SiriTD … she gives you that freedom … and we do not even get offended in the process

Mark de LA saysWell, maybe look inside your RWG & watch yourself making the qualia of being insulted. Then maybe get out of your automaticity about being right (N’s favorite) & yours (whatever?) & notice that you folks have contributed very little to the actual thought I have published here. You have filled several comments about reflex stuff your mind was occupied with without comprehending the material I posted. I suppose I could get insulted about that, but I have spoken about reading & not understanding & posting your touchstones – maybe also consider the graffiti nature of such a process. Threading a dictionary is just being trapped in a walled garden. ←
P.S. I can tell when you understand what I post …..

Mark de LA saysMostly because the off-topic stuff is yours. You can argue about it in your own pool.

Mark de LA saysMainly because you have yet to penetrate the subject beyond a pile of words. ← (warned you)

Seth saysWell *i* certainly interpreted your “You have not penetrated beyond the words” as you demeaning your image of my ability to listen beyond a person’s words to their true meaning. Then, as you suggest, *i* matched that with my qualia … felt pretty much like the time somebody put a roll of coins in my coat pocket in the coat room and then accused me of stealing, of which i was innocent. It does not feel good … trust me on that.

The only RWG, that happened was me feeling myself wrong in your eyes in response to your direct rebuke, “You guys are lost”, which i knew to be false … or at least misplaced and out of any context that we were sharing.

I guess you forgot that the first thing i said was that i needed to read the whole lecture … so you are right, i have yet to make a contribution here to this specific thought, for I have yet to read the lecture. Except perhaps to notice and clarify what nathan said .. which, according to what you keep saying, you have yourself yet to notice.

Incidentally, this mingling of thoughts is what i have always intended to happen in this thinking domain. That is the nature of the media in which your typing fingers are swimming. But if you want to keep your thoughts just private and to yourself, you can do that too.

Mark de LA saysAs a clue, hold onto your pool of mind stuff & observe its metamorphosis for a much longer time than you usually do & in the context of the item being discussed & see what that does. Maybe even throw away 3 or 4 ideas that show up first as immediately attached to the desire to post & come up with one in the same context as the person’s post which stimulated your desire to post in the first place.

Mark de LA saysmaybe see my previous post in time. threads of rwg or whatever kind of back-&-forth debate usually do not forward progress much that’s why relegate them to the pile label/tag.

Si saysSimple tag for things that translate concepts from one time period (or anything really) to another. i.e. unifying words across spaces.

Mark might call it munging … but I would call it “unmunging” or unifying.

Seth saysHere is an elaboration of Berkeley’s philosophy from Wikipedia … which RS refutes as “purely subjectivist” ...

The use of the concepts of "spirit" and "idea" is central in Berkeley’s philosophy. As used by him, these concepts are difficult to translate into modern terminology. His concept of "spirit" is close to the concept of "conscious subject" or of "mind", and the concept of "idea" is close to the concept of "sensation" or "state of mind" or "conscious experience".

Thus Berkeley denied the existence of matter as a metaphysical substance, but did not deny the existence of physical objects such as apples or mountains. ("I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with mine eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny, is that which philosophers call matter or corporeal substance. And in doing of this, there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare say, will never miss it.", Principles #35) This basic claim of Berkeley’s thought, his "idealism", is sometimes and somewhat derisively called "immaterialism" or, occasionally, subjective idealism. In Principles #3, he wrote, using a combination of Latin and English, esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived), most often if slightly inaccurately attributed to Berkeley as the pure Latin phrase esse est percipi.[15] The phrase appears associated with him in authoritative philosophical sources, e.g., "Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) – to be is to be perceived (or to perceive)."[12]

Hence, human knowledge is reduced to two elements: that of spirits and of ideas (Principles #86). In contrast to ideas, a spirit cannot be perceived. A person’s spirit, which perceives ideas, is to be comprehended intuitively by inward feeling or reflection (Principles #89). For Berkeley, we have no direct ’idea’ of spirits, albeit we have good reason to believe in the existence of other spirits, for their existence explains the purposeful regularities we find in experience.[16] ("It is plain that we cannot know the existence of other spirits otherwise than by their operations, or the ideas by them excited in us", Dialogues #145). This is the solution that Berkeley offers to the problem of other minds. Finally, the order and purposefulness of the whole of our experience of the world and especially of nature overwhelms us into believing in the existence of an extremely powerful and intelligent spirit that causes that order. According to Berkeley, reflection on the attributes of that external spirit leads us to identify it with God. Thus a material thing such as an apple consists of a collection of ideas (shape, color, taste, physical properties, etc.) which are caused in the spirits of humans by the spirit of God.

Seth says👍

Mark de LA saysmunging is when you jam two things together which may or not belong together just to assume a wider acceptance for your own material. The word itself in the urban dictionary is a munge of disgusting sexual behavior & also the merging together of different disparate softwares to form a different application opensource does that a lot. Bozo’s idea of consciousness & mine & PR’s & RS’s are all quite different distinctions.

Si saysOkay cool, I don’t do that. When I put things together across different scopes it is to show how they belong together. As in these works of RS which are clearly the same material being presented by AH today.

The “wider acceptance” is only an artifice of the process, if the wider acceptance even exists, and apparently doesn’t here.

Mark de LA saysWell OK – I differ as to whether you do that. RS was definitely against channeling & somnamulism.

Si says👍

Mark de LA says& PR made fun of it recently in a podcast

Si saysI like that you are clear in your beliefs. And I like that I am clear in mine. Bigger verses to explore that way!

I personally believe that it is rightfully so that RS was guiding people toward inner validation “in his times”. Too many people then were getting all their validation from false sources. Now the pendulum has swung past the middle point to the other direction (in part due to RS’s awesome pushing) and many more people today are using inner guidance and excitement and other inner sources to validate things … so now channeling and such is more practical. I believe that if RS was physical at this time (maybe he is) that he would be guiding people in how to do things like channeling correctly from a solid source of inner guidance.

Mark de LA saysWhy don’t you folks carry out your rwg on your own post instead of mine. I know what I mean. You folks apparently dont & prefer to make up your own shit about what I am saying to please your selfies.

Si saysAwesome meme! If you are going to use it, own it, and get over yourself and your self importance of having the only ideas that count.

Mark de LA saysYep, @Navigator you use it a lot, not sure I would copy any of it. unless I was a writer of fiction.

Mark de LA saysThe Wikipedia on Berkely seems a bit of philosophical pellick (PP for short) . Pragmatic utility tends to zero as one reads through the paragraphs above. RS on the Philosophy of Freedom does a better job of the dualism-monism thingy. Lots of Youtubes on that here is one sample

Si saysYou are a writer of fiction … you write your life, that IS fiction.

Seth sayshmmm …. now that does sound like a mung. in my ontology there is a difference between “real life” and “fiction” …. real life actually happens … fiction does not. see how that pesky “what happens” always comes into play.

which is not to say that we cannot #MakeShitUp in real life and #makeItHappen

Si saysYour story happens, and whatever elements you have designated as fictional and whichever you believe are reality, happen accordingly. That’s fact in my belief system.

So with that in mind, I would call each of our stories ficiton … to anyone else other than the one living the story.

Seth saysokay, that is the same way i have it, but i tell that story more normally … but essentially it has the same effect.

except that i would never call that what actually happens to you a fiction ... i call your real life story just as real as my own … even though it doesnt happen to me.

Si says👍

Si saysWell, this is in context to what Mark de LA was saying. He keeps saying #MakeShitUp is bad. He doesn’t seem to realize that he makes everything that he experiences up, direcly, or by momentum. It’s all made up and fit together and maintained by his belief system. His experience is one big story he is enjoying. So in that context, #MakeShitUp is what everyone does so that they can experience.

Seth saysi don’t think RS was talking about the “dualism-monism” thingey when he said, “The existence of this imaginative consciousness is the answer to endless philosophical discussions on the objective nature and reality of the world and it is the refutation of all purely subjectivist philosophies, such, for instance, as that of Berkeley. ”, …. which is why i went to Wikipedia to find the essence of Berkeley’s philosophy. To be honest with you, i have yet to totally grock what Steiner is saying … and then to translate that into what is meaningful for my own being.

Si says👍

Seth says👍

Seth saysyeah, mark seems always to aug making stuff up … wierd … it feels so good to me to do it.

Si saysWell, RS saying that the objective comes from the subjective is pretty unambiguious and stands on it’s own well, no matter what other context it is embeded in, and is the opposite of what most people have been told about reality … and is a basic aspect of LOA.

The Berkeley stuff? Who knows. Sounds to me like someone trying to lean in the direction of LOA and brainstorming it into a bunch of numbered rules … but only one humans attempt to sort things out, not a source given treatment of it.

Seth sayshmmm ….

Seth saysit was interesting to read Steiner again … but this time with a different attitude twards his words. This time i read him more like i was viewing a artistic creation … like a Shakesphere play. And then it hung together better. I’m going to go back and read it again … let it sink in … i am not so very sure that he is painting a LOA picture …. that seems to me to be a different opus.

Mark de LA says👍

Si says👍

Si saysRS is working with many of the same underlying concepts, at least in the area of “the nature of reality” … and his treatments seem to agree well with LOA where they touch on the same aspect.

And I agree, it is more like a work of art, and well steeped in the needs and language of his circa 1900 times. As I was saying, someday probably sooner than 100 years, LOA will be superseded by something that more exactly matches the evolving human perception … and then LOA will be more like a work of art than a current treatment of understanding.

Seth saysI believe that Steiner’s spiritual world is discovered through imigination and intuition which can only comes out of the subjective aspects of my being. It is inside of me. Objectively, outside of me, things can be somewhat reliably measured, and shared, and communicated, and experienced by others. Those are edges that i can not deny … and others i have talked to seem to run their stories on variations of that basic perdicament.

Mark de LA saysSitting around speculating about what he said & munging your own into it making it unrecognizable to be related to is an interesting way to try to grok something which is already fully there in print & in youtube (interpreted by people who have studied it for years). I read it a couple of times . In my youth & young adult years. The dualism/monism discussion was just one part & a basic thread. Read his biography on the internet & understand that his context was – Metaphysics, epistemology,philosophy of science,esotericism, Christianity . Would that your biographies contain as many accomplishments.

Si saysIt has been the predicament, for a while in our history, but it does not have to be. Times are changing, and that predicament is softening. We done did learn what we created the predicament to learn, and grow from. Now, we are “remembering” and pre-setup many sources to help us remember. Bashar and Abraham are only a few of them … the ones that are closest to my personal vibration.

Si saysMy biography does. It all depends on how one measures accomplishments right? I suspect I use a completely different measuring tool … my measuring stick measures “every person” to have great accomplishments and to have been indispensible to the state of all that is.

Mark de LA saysWhen a little kid makes up a story it is cute. Sometimes a little kid makes up stories to deceive its parents or its classmates. Eventually at some age such behavior is called lying & recognized by other adults as such. Lying is not cute for an adult. Be careful & label it as such (fiction) when you do it as an adult. The amusing meme thought 21459#58512 relates. Sometimes in politics it becomes propaganda with perniciousness as it’s aim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie . Sometimes in religion & beliefs it becomes a con-game. Some people say there is no such thing as a lie which is part of the con-game.

Seth saysokay, but i hope you realize that me, i read that story with the same attitude as i said i was reading Steiner … or WATCH a Shakesphere play … er, as a fictional opus. Just like Steiner’s stories of what happened long time ago, or will happen a long time in the future … i go … nice story, if i like it. But some parts of your story read to me like a horror movie … i sense what happens outside of me, i don’t make that shit up like a movie.

Seth saysWell Steiner was a human being and pulled his pants on just like i do. What he left in print can be interpreted many ways indeed … and the worlds he made up subjectively can be appreciated or not, just as we want. Steiner’s stories seem to lend some light on my own … but then so does Shakesphere’s MacBeth and Nathan’s LOA. That Mark de LA wants to adopt a different attitude than that to what Steiner says, seems to be his choice or learned discipline. But there are millions of stories in this naked city … and Steiner’s is but one of them to me.

Mark de LA saysConsciousness is a weird animal – ubiquitous but not easy to grasp – always present in one form or another. GW professed (P.2693) it to be a property of all ultimate particles: so there is a lot of it. What is an ultimate particle is left to the student to figure out. PR might say beings. Consciousness may be independent of the rules of logic, language or the rational. What one is conscious of is different from another. Agreement is sometimes magick & so is disagreement. Discussions here would be nicer if they reflected a respect for the varieties of consciousness.

Mark de LA saysMunge on dear bro!

Seth says👍

Seth sayshmmm …. agreement and disagreement as varieties of consciousness … now that is a new one .

… but i guess you realize that consciousness by disagreement alone will never grow … because it always destroys that which it creates.

Seth says👍

Mark de LA saysVarieties of consciousness is a context within which agreement & disagreement can be held & where the latter show up. (Slightly different) – there is a prepositional difference.

Seth sayscould you elaborate on that?

Si saysWell Mark de LA, that is the story you, and your circle of peers, and the news and literature you attract and read, supports.

It is not the only story available. I used to “subscribe” to that story too, and raised a whole family for 18 years under that story.

Now I have a completely different story and enjoy watching what kids do and how they are “literally” making up the story they will be experiencing. It’s adults that have a different experience, not the kids. It’s easy to see when you know what to look for.

My life, and the lives of the kids who ask me to participate in their awakening, is vastly improved by my new story. It works! … and keeps on working better and better. #MakeShitUp is the new way … and it’s vast and amazing for those who believe it! There is NO downside.

Mark de LA saysI did above but it got condensed within your consciousness. Nevertheless, I see arguments as an extension of the fact that we all have different consciousness content. If we all had one uniform consciousness how could we disagree about anything. ← think about it! Here conversations & … are usually pointing at different things that we are aware of in our own consciousness. Where our consciousnesses meet on the same may be magick or annilation or something else .

Si says👍

Mark de LA saysYep, that is what cults & cultists would say.

Si saysI agree. I have GREAT RESPECT for the varieties of consciousness. My variety even allows me to understand that each one exists because it is a story with a consistent set of beliefs that support it. This allows me to see every single variety as valuable and real. How can you beat that? It is an amazing mult-verse we live in!

Mark de LA says

Si says👍

Si saysYou bet! It is the boat I can row … unless you want me to row yours for you?

Seth says👍

Seth says👍

Seth says👍

Mark de LA says Thanks for illustrating my point while missing it at the same time.

Seth saysdisagreement is certainly a part of consciousness and our multi verses

i have observed that constant unvarying disagreement will never grow and change into more amazing complexity and freedom and beauty … because by its very nature it keeps destroying it as it goes along. which is why i anchor my life in what i can agree and share with others … much more amazing for me.

Mark de LA saysI can certainly separate consciousness from all the other animals. It takes a bit of concentration & contemplation. Otherwise, IDK – did you say anything?
Which brings up a question I had in mind during this AM contemplation. What practical, pragmatic values are your individual philosophies & world outlooks satisfying as you go about your daily lives, cooking, eating, sleeping, fucking, brushing teeth if you have them, ….. etc?
How have they transformed anything that any other philosophies & ontologies wouldn’t have done equally well? Suppose you had a different basket of words – what then?
… just saying & asking

Si saysAs to the how are things better? Oh God, where do I start! Literally everything about my life and the lives of the people I am intimately connected to is better in ever way because of my current ontology.

I had a different basket of words, the same basket a lot of people in our culture use, and they did not support me well at all … I was always wanting. Now I am always excited for what is next and very rarely wanting. I see many other baskets of words that do that for people too! But not that basket you are using Mark de LA, I don’t mind that you use it and it’s totally up to you when and if you want to change baskets … I have no issue with that at all even though I have tried it and found it wanting. I only have issue when you bully from out of the dissonance your basket inspires.

Si says👍

Mark de LA saysMaybe consult a psychiatrist over your bully obsession – is that the toiletpaper event in your childhood past or something else? Your generalization – mostly just words doesn’t really answer the question, but am glad you got some more out of your system.